This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I've heard that the Bible is infallible, as well as not to be taken literally

#1Kaj_KetosPosted 7/27/2011 6:14:56 PM
Which is it?
---
Fan of the Padres and Chargers
"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. - Ron Burgundy
#2SirThinkALotPosted 7/27/2011 6:19:53 PM(edited)
Why cant it be both? Or why cant it be infallible in its actual meaning?
---
Read my blog: http://sirthinkalotsthoughts.blogspot.com/
PSN name: SirThinkALot
#3Kaj_Ketos(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2011 6:26:09 PM
Infallible generally implies that objective statements of truth have been made.
---
Fan of the Padres and Chargers
"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. - Ron Burgundy
#4kozlo100Posted 7/27/2011 6:32:03 PM(edited)
Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean those statements of truth were made in a literal manner.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#5Kaj_Ketos(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2011 6:38:06 PM
I'm thinking of examples of Old Testament stories, such as Noah's Ark and David & Goliath. If those stories aren't to be taken literally, then why were they put in there?

Let me put it this way. The distinction I want to make between the two is like between a story book and a history book.
---
Fan of the Padres and Chargers
"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. - Ron Burgundy
#6kozlo100Posted 7/27/2011 6:44:49 PM(edited)
You put them in there because they convey a moral or philosophical truth.

Having a tome such as the bible include both histories and fables does not negate its infallibility. The histories could infallibly convey historical truths, while the fables convey moral or philosophical truths via metaphor.

A person holding the positions you mention is essentially claiming that all messages the bible conveys are true, not that everything in the bible actually happened.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#7cyclonekrusePosted 7/27/2011 6:47:17 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Having a tome such as the bible include both histories and fables does not negate its infallibility. The histories could infallibly convey historical truths, while the fables convey moral or philosophical truths via metaphor.

The trick, unfortunately, is figuring out which is which.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#8Kaj_Ketos(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2011 6:50:24 PM
The trick, unfortunately, is figuring out which is which.

Unfortunately, this sort of takes any responsibility away from any Christians who have to validate the Bible. If science made discoveries that contradict Biblical passages, then all they have to say is "It's not to be taken literally."
---
Fan of the Padres and Chargers
"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. - Ron Burgundy
#9kozlo100Posted 7/27/2011 6:52:28 PM
Isn't it just?

Though I'm of the opinion that you get a richer understanding of the information if you hold neither to infallibility nor literal accuracy, even from a believer's perspective.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#10hamsandwich3141Posted 7/27/2011 8:53:11 PM
In that case I suppose every holy text is infallible as long as it is interpreted "correctly."
---
I only have a signature so I can type my posts in CAPS LOCK.